Re: GNU GPL future
MJ Ray wrote:
> Well, that's just great for the users who can see the UI without it
> spewing errors. Was there really no way to offer the same features to
> everyone in an easily-accessible way?
I don't know; you'd have to ask the designers. Although you are now
using the word "accessible" when I don't think you were before; is your
complaint that there are disabled users who can't access the interface?
Or just that it doesn't work in a particular graphical browser? I have
far more sympathy with the former complaint than the latter.
>> Given that free software browsers which work with it are available for
>> almost every current OS under the sun, to reduce the function to further
>> widen the browser choice would have been a bad tradeoff.
>
> There are free software browsers with which it doesn't work, even though
> they follow the usual web standards.
Which ones?
> Should it be the place of FSF
> consultations to discriminate between free software by using non-standard
> features of some of them?
Which non-standard features do you have in mind? Even bearing in mind
that the line between standard and non-standard features has blurred
somewhat with the emergence of the WhatWG, there is a distinction
between "doesn't work because the browser hasn't implemented the
standards yet" and "doesn't work because some non-standard feature has
been used".
> It's a big step backwards from any-browser
> (which was claimed on the gplv3 site at first, but later removed, rather
> than bringing the software into line).
What does "any-browser" mean? Would you have them work on Netscape 4
support? Or Netscape 3? Where does it end?
Devil's advocate: Would you have objected if they had said "We can't do
this properly in a browser-based interface; please download our free
software dedicated client, with binaries available for Windows, Linux
and Mac OS X, and source in this tarball"? If not, what's the difference
if Firefox is the dedicated client?
Gerv
Reply to: